You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
“If you’re a Republican with energy expertise, yeah, your stock is fairly high right now.”
Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, passed on a party line vote by the narrowest of margins — 50 Democratic votes in the Senate (with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie) and 220 in the House of Representatives. With tense tax negotiations looming next year, it will now have to survive a 53-Republican Senate and a majority-Republican House. And that means that if they want to save the IRA from being gutted, the beneficiaries of its tax credits for the production of and investment in non-carbon-emitting fuels, advanced manufacturing, hydrogen, carbon capture, and the rest will have to learn to speak Republican.
The companies that benefit from the bill are “going to keep engaging policy makers on both sides of the aisle, but particularly now Republicans,” Jason Clark, the former chief strategy officer of the American Clean Power Association and head of energy policy consulting firm Power Brief, told me.
“There’s been a very thoughtful, very considerate effort to do just that — to make sure that they know how to engage with Republicans in a way that is authentic, that isn’t just lip service,” Clark said. The industry should avoid, “Oh, my goodness, we want to be buddies all of a sudden because you’re in power.”
One way to do that is by making sure you have Republicans making your case. The American Clean Power Association has former Trump administration and American Petroleum Institute staffers on its policy and federal affairs teams, for example.
“If you’re a Republican with energy expertise, yeah, your stock is fairly high right now,” Colin Hayes, a former senior staffer on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources under Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and founding partner of the bipartisan lobbying firm Lot Sixteen, which represents a number of green energy firms and trade groups, told me in an email. “We’ve been getting a lot of calls.”
But it’s not just hiring the right people — the industry also needs to be “learning to engage with members of Congress as constituents,” Emily Domenech, a former staffer for House Speakers Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson who is now a senior vice president at Boundary Stone, a firm founded by veterans of the Obama Department of Energy, told me.
“In the past, clean energy hasn’t focused on getting to know those representatives. When they’ve had ideas for bills or policies, they went to Democrats. They haven’t built a lot of personal relationships with members of Congress on the other side of the aisle,” Domenech said.
Her advice? “Go out there and build relationships and do the shoe leather lobbying engagement that every other company is doing.”
And what kind of arguments might would-be buddy-buddy clean energy companies make to those Republican lawmakers?
Along with some changes in vocabulary, their strategy will likely involve a combination of appeals to business and investment certainty, job creation in Republican districts, and emphasizing the regional benefits of certain incentives, like tax credits for wind energy and carbon capture in the Great Plains or manufacturing in the South.
That’s because the projects themselves have largely ended up in Republican-represented and -controlled areas, which tend to have the open space and business-friendly regulatory climate clean energy companies appreciate, even when they’re run by Democrats.
Lobbyist Scott Segal, who represents a number of energy companies and other firms affected by the Inflation Reduction Act in his capacity as a leader of the government relations team at Bracewell, told me in an email that “the value proposition for a balanced energy portfolio contains many elements already of great concern to Republican leaders.”
“Significant capital has already been deployed based on clean energy incentives,” he said. “To change these incentives in midstream would create business uncertainty — in effect, it would increase taxes on these projects. Outcomes like this run counter to long-standing Republican principles.”
The industry is already starting to get the hang of the lingo. Advanced Energy United, a clean energy trade group, was early congratulating Donald Trump on his election victory. “When we talk to Republican lawmakers,” the group’s managing director, Harrison Godfrey, told me, the message is, “let’s not fundamentally change course. Investment decisions take years. We build industries with certainty.”
As several lobbyists and strategists I spoke to pointed out, the Inflation Reduction Act did not invent clean energy tax credits, and this won’t be the first battle to preserve them. Tax incentives for non-carbon-emitting “alternative” energy have been a part of the policy landscape since the late 1970s. Wind energy and biofuels have won especially ardent support from some very powerful Republicans, namely those in the Corn Belt, and particularly Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who has for decades fought for extending the production tax credit for wind.
“These are credits and industries that didn’t spring up yesterday and have literally been in existence for decades,” Godfrey told me.
The best example of an alternative energy credit that embedded itself within the Republican Party policy playbook is one many environmentalists face with some degree of chagrin: biofuels, Domenech told me.
The Renewable Fuel Standard, established by the Energy Policy Act in 2005 amid concerns about energy security, has become a bonanza for states like Iowa, which grows much of the corn that is then processed into ethanol fuel according to standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Lawmakers’ attachment to the program is so strong that it has at times run a fissure through the Republican Party. Though Trump’s first EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, was one of the administration’s chief villains in the eyes of the environmental movement, he also became a punching bag for Republican lawmakers, including Grassley, who tangled with Pruitt in 2017 over blending targets for biofuels and the waivers given to refiners to avoid buying credits to comply with the program. (When Pruitt resigned in a cloud of scandal the following year, Grassley took a rhetorical victory lap.)
Capitol Hill has maintained biofuels’ first-among-equals status ever since. The industry’s sway with lawmakers of both parties in the Midwest is why Republicans are joining with Democrats to introduce bills to extend the 45Z tax credit for so-called clean fuels “at a time when a lot of other IRA credits could be on the chopping block,” Domenech said.
Similar alliances could form around other parts of the bill, especially those with well-defined regional impacts, Domenech said. Doug Burgum, Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Interior and the head of his newly-formed National Energy Council, has backed a massive carbon capture and pipeline project in his home state of North Dakota, which some analysts have said could get billions of dollars in tax credits, Geothermal development could also maintain the support of lawmakers in the Mountain West, where most of the country’s geothermal resource is located, while incoming Senate Environment and Public Works chair Shelly Moore Capito is one of the chamber’s biggest advocates for nuclear power.
“If you ask Republicans to be for or against the IRA as a whole, they’ll be against it,” Domenech told me, “But Republicans think about energy as a regional issue. So instead of forcing this one size fits all approach, IRA advocates would be smart to give people room to support only the policies that make the most sense for their state or region.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.